NY woman who fatally shoved singing coach, age 87, is sentenced to more time in prison than expected
NY woman who fatally shoved singing coach, age 87, is sentenced to more time in prison than expected
More time has been tacked onto an eight-year prison sentence for a New York woman who fatally shoved an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach.
A New York judge sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to fatally shoving an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach onto a Manhattan sidewalk to six months more in prison than the eight years that had been previously reached in a plea deal.
You're viewing a single thread.
Judge saw through the crocodile tears, and sentenced her appropriately. I see a lot of pearl clutching in this thread, would you be so empathic towards this sociopath if the victim were your mother or grandmother?
I don't know anything about this case, but revenge is not a solution. Our penal system is totally fucked, and part of the issue is people have been told that revenge is justice. It isn't. We will all be paying for this woman to be locked up and she won't be able to contribute to society. If we tried to rehabilitate, that'd be one thing. We just try to punish though, and people like you act like a harsher punishment is good somehow. What good does it do?
Oh no, who could have ever predicted that actions might have consequences. She killed someone, completely unprovoked to boot. It’s not revenge to lock her ass up, it’s the consequence of her killing someone.
It's still revenge. I agree there should be some consequences, but should it be for life? I can use your exact argument to just keep increasing the sentence. At what point is it not acceptable? Should every mistake be a life sentence? The US already has the worst incarceration rate by far in the world. Why are people still ok with this shit? Why do they think this argument is acceptable? It doesn't work as a deterrent, so what's the point, besides making you feel good about getting revenge?
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Without personal emotion I do not believe it to be revenge and with a professional judge upholding judicial standards set by society I do not believe the consequence bestowed on this woman displays any signs of being revenge. That’s not so say I agree that is true for every punishment but it most certainly aligns in this case, I’m sure that line will look different for different folks. She purposefully acted in a violent manner that directly killed somebody. No unpredictable tools, mechanisms, devices, or external factors were at play. Her hands and her mind alone violently shoved and killed this woman. Eight years seems plenty appropriate to me. Depending on circumstances, some within her control, should could see a meaningful reduction to that sentence. Theirs plenty of incarceration issues to take issue with that display a failed system, this isn’t one of them in my assessment.
My biggest issue is this was obviously spontaneous. The punishment likely would play no factor in preventing this from happening. If the sentence is death, she still probably would have done it because it wasn't considered. In that case, what does 8 years do that 4 years or life also doesn't do? The harshness of the sentence doesn't matter and it's just another person to pay taxes to keep in prison who is providing nothing in that time. What good does it do besides making people feel like she got what she deserved (aka, revenge).
We get some of that sweet sweet
slavefree labor!This fella....just 4 years for killing someone and you still want to white knight here?
He's not being a white knight towards this specific woman.
He's raising the topic of what is best for society.
I agree with his point. Law and order doesn't exist to punish people or to get revenge. It exists for the benefit of society. And putting people in jail, making them unable to contribute to society and becoming a permanent burden on society is bad for society. It doesn't do any good.
Frankly, I think it's better for society to just bring back the guillotine if we aren't going to rehabilitate.
You're assuming four years in prison won't allow her to rehabilitate. It very well might.
We have the data for this that it won't. The US doesn't have rehabilitation programs. We have punishment programs. We don't really provide tools for people to improve their lives when they're out. If anything, we do the opposite. If you have a criminal record of any kind, getting a job is significantly harder, which pushes people into illegal work again.
We have the data that it LIKELY won't, but that just means we need to do better with our prisoners and rehab programs. It's not an excuse to let someone who killed someone right back onto the streets.
Are other countries with better rehab programs letting manslaughter convicts out in less than four years?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_Swedish_law
Apparently in Sweden you get 6-10 for manslaughter.
Looks like it'd be this one, so yeah they are more lenient:
Causing the death of another (Vållande till annans död, literally 'causing another's death'). It roughly corresponds to negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. The law reads: "A person who causes the death of another person through negligence is guilty of causing the death of another and is sentenced [...]" The punishment for Vållande till annans död is:
A fine (day-fines) if the crime is petty,
Any prison term up to 2 years, or
Any prison term between 1 year and 6 years "if the offence is gross".[2]
We're talking about voluntary manslaughter. "Drap" or whatever. That's 6-10 in Sweden.
That requires intent. I'm pretty certain intent can't be implied in this case. She pushed her and she fell, but was old and frail and died. She did not kill her on purpose. It's involuntary.
I ‘m sure it has nothing to do with her being a white rich woman
I see a discussion about rehabilitating everyone or guillotining everyone. I don't think there's any need to mix race into these extremes.
It's true though. I have a family member who is a white woman that has repeatedly crashed her car into buildings while trying to run people down, fractured skulls with hammers, thrown people into oncoming traffic. She's just got a bad temper. Nothing ever happens to her. Cops talk people out of pressing charges, she's never even spent a night in jail.
in jail
Wait, but the NY woman did go to jail, didn't she? I don't think anyone was suggesting here that she shouldn't have been sentenced.
Where did you get 4 years? Plea deal was for 8, judge added 6 months to that.
This isn't a rebuttal against what you're saying overall btw, just a correction on the 4 years. 8.5 years still seems too short.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world by a large margin. How do you see that as acceptable? We have a culture of revenge and it doesn't do any good. Shouldn't the purpose of laws be to do as much good as possible, not to make people feel nice because they got revenge?
There are people doing more time than her for having weed on their person or passing a bad check to buy groceries or pay rent. Let's start there, not with people who kill old ladies because they're mad about being asked to leave an establishment that is closing.
We need to reform the system completely. Saying we need to start with only one crime is being shortsighted. It's all fucked, and it's fucked so some people can profit off of it. I agree those people serving more time is worse, but it's a symptom of a rotten system, not something we can fix one case at a time.
System reform doesnt start with the crimes you feel morally okay with. It starts with systemic issues.
I mean.. yeah.. but I don't think you're going to get far arguing that violent people who kill old ladies for sport should be given less time. You'll win more hearts and minds with literally any other type of crime (except those against kids). She is an example of someone who does need to be separated from society, for the safety of vulnerable people.
You think this was a sport killing?
It was classed by the court as first degree manslaughter. She got angry, threw food, was "storming" down the street, saw an old lady on the other side of the street, called her a bitch, crossed the street and killed her, to placate her own rage. Yes, I would call that sport killing. It would be slightly different if the woman just happened to be in her way, but she wasn't. She saw a target, made a decision, changed course, and killed her to meet her own emotional need. If she had been in a car and done this there wouldn't be a question (unless of course the lady had been protesting something at the time, then game on!).
Thats.... a wealth of assumptions. What youve detailed assumes a ton about the motive, but you didnt even detail a sport killing. Killing someone "to meet an emotional need" isnt killing for sport.
Youre also assuming that she knew pushing the lady over would be lethal, and that she started an argument with the express intent of justifying lethally shoving her.
She was drunk, bud. A drunk person incorrectly assuming a passer by is insulting them in some way and starting a fight over that assumption is so common its a writing stereotype.
Angrily starting a drunken argument on the street and then getting violent isnt killing for sport.
And, like.... yeah if she had a murder weapon it sure would be different. If she had done it sober at 8 in the morning it would be different too.
E: it feels kinda dumb the say "thats not killing for sport" without saying why. Sport killing is killing for the fun of it. Like, intentionally hunting someone down and killing because you enjoy making someone die. Theres no evidence publicly available that she shoved the victim because she wanted to kill her, for the purpose of personal enjoyment.
There are better ways to bring down incarceration rates than to go easy on casual murderers.
I get your position but killing is where I draw the line.
Let's say you accidentally hit someone with your car. Does that deserve a life sentence? You killed someone and I draw the line at killing, so I think we should lock you away forever. Stupid, right? I'm not going to argue for a certain amount of punishment (none of it effectively works to deter crime, especially accidental), but I will argue that we need to fix our system. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and that doesn't need to be the case. We could have rehabilitation instead of torture too, which would help people when they finally do get out to contribute to society.
Rehabilitation and revenge are two out of the four aims of sentencing. There's also deterrence and prevention: sending a message to everyone else that this is not okay, and simply keeping the convict away from the public so they can't hurt anyone else.
Except we have the data for this. Long sentences don't work effectively for deterrence. If it did, sure. Since it doesn't, that's not valid.
Lmao I can want prison to be a place of rehabilitation and still want a criminal to spend time locked up, away from society.
Yes, they would still be locked up for a period of time. I don't know what the right amount of time is, but just wanting more always creates more issues. You can always ask for more. It never ends. The sentencing time should be based on data and science, not feelings.
Sigh.
I don’t know both sides to this debate. Do you disagree? If so, what do you think? Tbh it sounds pretty reasonable to focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment, is the difference mainly focused on terminology differences?
I think that punishment is a deterrent for bad behavior and it's sad such a thing even needs to be discussed.
The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.
The US has more people in prison as a proportion of the population than almost anywhere else, and notoriously harsh prisons by developed world standards. We also have some of the highest crime rates among developed countries, so it would seem that maybe punishment isn't that great a deterrent.
yea for minority drug charges
this is none of those
Sorry, I've had this argument before.
Do you think that the only difference between the US and other developed nations that has an impact on crime is the rate of imprisonment?
You're right, punishment is only one of very many factors. Thanks for making my argument for me.
So in your mind, we punish a criminal mostly/exclusively for the benefit of other citizens who might then decide not to commit crimes? What do you think about the criminal themselves?
The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The only reason there’s a discussion about the purpose of criminal punishment?
So in your mind, we punish a criminal mostly/exclusively for the benefit of other citizens who might then decide not to commit crimes?
I'd say that's pretty close. I'm not going to take an "all-or-nothing" approach and say prison can't rehabilitate, but I would say it's mostly to punish criminals so fewer people commit crimes.
What do you think about the criminal themselves?
It depends on the crime and the criminal.
The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.
I'm referring to people who don't understand that not everyone is good. There are bad people out there with no hope of rehabilitation and will just take advantage of any opportunity to receive a lesser punishment for their bad deeds.
You've reduced the argument for less severe punishment in favor of rehabilitation to:
I'm referring to people who don't understand that not everyone is good. There are bad people out there with no hope of rehabilitation and will just take advantage of any opportunity to receive a lesser punishment for their bad deeds.
This is a horrible argument. No one is saying that there aren't some people who can't be helped. However, should all people be damned because a few can't be redeemed? In a system that prioritizes rehabilitation, you'd review the prisoners progress occasionally to see if they're problems are being solved. If they aren't, they'll serve a full lengthy sentence. If they are then they can stop being a burden to society and instead benifit society. What's not to like about that? We waste so much money on holding people in cells and not even trying to fix them. Why do you want your taxes spent for that?
However, should all people be damned because a few can’t be redeemed?
The thing is, all people aren't damned. There are plenty of options for rehabilitation in the US for prisoners who have the capacity for it and haven't committed crimes so heinous they don't deserve it. Those options should remain there and we should always be looking for ways to improve and expand upon them.
Still, what deters people from committing crimes isn't 'going to rehab.' It's going to prison where they lose their freedom and have to live in worse conditions than they would on the outside. If prison becomes an 'adult daycare,' then criminals would be less deterred by punishment and more willing to commit crimes as a result.
I think your confusing what in saying. I'm not saying send them to some rehab center. I'm saying change prisons to allow for rehabilitation. We can provide more and better education opportunities and ways to improve. We can provide options for them to seek therepy and medication. We can allow them to work towards becoming a better person. They'd still be in prison without their freedom. It's still a punishment. It's just a punishment that you can come out of better, rather than one where you come out worse with little to no prospects of legal work.
Harsher sentences do not effectively work as deterrence from the data we currently have. The US has the highest incarceration rate, by a large margin, so all else being equal we should have the lowest crime rate, right? This isn't true, so we can pretty reasonably say our method is not working and is placing a larger burden on society than it needs to (though it's making some people very wealthy).
so all else being equal we should have the lowest crime rate, right?
In what myopic world do you live in where "all else is equal"?
Also, you're confusing "harsher sentences" with "incarceration rate." They are not the same.
Obviously all else isn't equal. However, given a large enough data set (the entire world) it's clear it isn't working because we're literally the worst. Thats why I said all else being equal, because variations should average out across the sample and we should be able to compare performance.
Also, you're confusing "harsher sentences" with "incarceration rate." They are not the same.
They aren't the same, but they're closely related. If we double all sentences then, over time, the incarceration rate would double, all else being equal. If each prisoner is spending more time in prison, more people will be in prison at any given time.
Well, that and all the scientific research that shows definitively that punishment isnt a successful deterrent for criminal behavior.
Can you link it?
definitively
Lol, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Let's see this "definitive" research. You probably think any study is "definitive." Lol.
Multiple examples have been linked in the thread already, and even more come up on a simple google search of the topic.
But you and I both know that you dont care about the sources, why even ask? We both know youve already decided that hurting people works, no amount of science or fact is going to shake you of that.
Real professionals have been working on this for decades, and you hand wave that away as "victims getting taken advantage of by criminals."
You dont care about the facts. You have some personal grudge about this. Why not be honest?
Lol, okay.
asked for sources
doesn't provide them
So convincing.
I'm curious what you are specifically referring to. You're the one who brought up scientific studies. Link to them. Are you saying you just read what was in this thread and that's what you're citing? Okay. Link to the specific studies you're talking about.
I'm not interested in what other people are referring to. I'm interested in what you, the guy bringing up studies, is referring to.
You say they're "definitive." Show me a definitive study. Go on. Go ahead. Don't make me comb through and assume what you're talking about. Stick your neck out and own it.
Youre a faceless stranger, not the TA reading my dissertation. You have already been shown a few sources. I know you know how to use a search engine. You clearly dont want to be convinced. Why would I google anything for you?
Youre hyper focusing on a word because you think that no matter what study I find, you can try to pull a "well technichallllllly" on one version of the words definition, because you think no social science can show definitive results. The gotcha attempt is more see through than glass.
Detail why I would put work into something I know you wont read just so you can misinterpret a single word in bad faith to avoid having to confront the reality that punishment isnt a real deterrent?
It would be more productive if you come clean about what happened to you that makes this emotional for you. Family in and out of the system? Or a partner? Who or what hurt you so bad you feel the desire to punish strangers?
"If you were unable to think rationally about the case, you would have a different opinion" isn't the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is.